State of Gujarat vs BAVUBEN MANOJBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI — 295/2026

Case under Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN070005392026

Filing Number

295/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

295/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, PALITANA

Judge

3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11198042251125

Police Station

PALITANA TOWN POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BAVUBEN MANOJBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - A B JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary of Case 295/2026 The court acquitted advocate Bavuben Manojbhai Vaghela of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the panchnama (seizure document) was not properly corroborated, independent witnesses were not examined, and no FSL report confirmed the seized substance was liquor, making the alleged offense unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 295/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 295/2026 The court acquitted advocate Bavuben Manojbhai Vaghela of charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949, Section 65(A), finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the panchnama (seizure document) was not properly corroborated, independent witnesses were not examined, and no FSL report confirmed the seized substance was liquor, making the alleged offense unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case